5 comments about Sovereign Ladies: Sex. Sacrifice and Power--The Six Reigning Queens of England.

1. Sovereign Ladies is the story of the six women who have ruled Great Britian. You might call it a tale of the good, bad, ugly and beautiful!
   Historian Maureen Waller writes in an accessible style which adds to our knowledge of these important historical women. Waller's book discusses in scintillating chapters the following queens:
   1. Mary I (reign-1553-1558). Bloody Mary so called because of the over
   300 Protestants burned at the stake during her reign. Mary followed Edward IV her Protestant half brother to the throne. Mary was the daughter of Katherine of Aragon the first wife of Henry VIII. Henry had divorced Katherine in order to wed Anne Boleyn. Katherine had failed to produce a male heir to the throne. Mary wed Phillip II of Spain but failed to have a child. She was a devout Roman Catholic not liked by the British people. Her relationship with her half sister Elizabeth was convoluted. At one time she imprisoned Elizabeth in the Tower of London.
   Her attempt to align England with the papacy failed and she died after a short and inglorious reign.
   2. Elizabeth I (1558-1603). The greatest queen and possibly the greatest ruler in English history she was good Queen Bess beloved by her people.
   During her long reign the Spanish Armada was defeated; England lived under a policy of religious toleration; Shakespeare and his fellow playwrights produced great plays; North America was explored and Virginia named after the Virgin Queen. Elizabeth never married though she was often courted. Elizabeth was a brilliant intellect speaking several modern and ancient languages. She surrounded herself with savvy advisors. In 1587 she ordered the execution of her cousin Mary Queen of Scots due to the latter's involvement in conspiracies designed to dethrone Elizabeth and restore England to the Roman Catholic faith. The cult of Elizabeth was wide and she was considered a modern incarnation of the Virgin Mary. She was the daughter of the beheaded Anne Boleyn and the formidable and evil Henry VIII. Countless novels, movies and biographies of this complex ruler pour off the presses.
   3, Mary II. (1688-1694) Mary was the daughter of James II (he reigned from 1685-1688). James II was a Roman Catholic who was forced into exile in 1688 to be replaced by William of Orange the Protestant from the Netherlands. William and Mary reigned as co-monarchs. Mary was a bright woman and a good queen. She loved her husband, England and learning. She was childless and died young. Mary was a strong Protestant unlike her father James II. In 1690 James II lost the battle of the Boyne in his attempt to unseat William and Mary.
   4. Anne (1702-1714). Anne was the younger sister of Mary II and the daughter of Catholic James II. She was duller than her sister Mary and plotted against her father. Anne became Queen of England following the death of King William. She was constantly pregnant by her mediocre husband George of Denmark. None of her 16 pregnancies resulted in the birth of a healthy child. Her children died in childbirth or expired prior to adulthood. Her best friend was Sarah Churchill the wife of the famed soldier John Churchill but the two later had a bitter quarrel never reconciling. England grew in power during Anne's reign. She was an ordinary woman who was thrust into power.
   5. Victoria (reigned from 1837-1901). There is the Elizabethan age and the Victorian Age. Elizabeth and Victoria are not only the two greatest of the queens chronicled by Waller but the two greatest monarchs of Great Britain. Victoria was the daughter of the Duke of Kent one of the many dissolute sons of George III. She ascended the throne following the death of her uncle William IV. Victoria was not beautiful and had a willful and imperious nature. She became queen as a young girl being tutored by her beloved father-figure Prime Minister Palmerston. She would later come to rely on Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli a Tory. Victoria detested the Liberal Prime Minister Gladstone.
   Victoria's great love was for her German husband Albert. She and Albert had nine children; she became known as the grandmother of Europe. Kaiser Wilhelm II was her granchild as was Tsar Nicholas of Russia. When Albert died in 1861 Queen Victoria went into seclusion for many years. She worshipped Albert sleeping with a picture of him in his coffin each night.
   Under the prodding of Disraeli she emerged in the 1870s as a visible presence on the political scene. She favored the emergence of the middle classes and had a keen mind. Victoria was very fat with a 48 inch waistline in middle age. She did not get along well with the playboy Prince of Wales Edward who became King Edward VII when she died in 1901.
   During her reigin Britain ruled over a quarter of the globe. She became Empress of India and her image was seen on everything from the penny postage stamp to vases. Her storng sense of morality and service is commendable. Victoria loved England and the English loved her. A great queen!
   6. Elizabeth II (1953-present). Elizabeth "Lillibet" was the oldest daughter of King George VI and his wife Mary of Teck. W@hen the old king died Elizabeth and her dashing Greek husband Phillip were on tour in Kenya. Elizabeth was raised in a cocoon along with her spoiled sister Margaret. During her long reign Britain has declined in power. She has been a better queen than a mother. Three of her four children have divorced. She lost popularity when Charles divorced Diana and wed his love Camilla Parker Bowles. Elizabeth lacks imagination but has been a good ruler of what is sometimes called "The Firm" of Royals. Elizabeth has endured and is much admired throughout the world.
   Waller's book contains no new historical revelations and is written as popular history for a general audience. As a longtime fan of the British Royalty I did enjoy this book. It will both entertain and enlighten the reader. I look forward to future books by this young historian.



2. History is one of those subjects that endlessly fascinates me. And one of my favourite times and places is England. So it was pretty much a given that I would pick up Maureen Waller's latest study on the six women who have ruled as monarchs in their own right.
   
   The six women here enjoy a unique position in history, ruling alone (with one exception) and helping to shape what we now know as England. Each one had a very different personality and would help to provide plenty of legend and mythology to what we think of as a Queen. One of them is still living, and several have become icons in the modern mind.
   
   Mary I, Elizabeth I, Mary II, Anne, Victoria and Elizabeth II, are probably better known than their male counterparts. They have been the subjects of innumerable books and films, and have inspired the arts, social custom and were often the catalysts for change in the time that they ruled.
   
   I have to say, I was not that impressed by this book. Each queen is covered in a series of vignettes, most of them rather scanty and feeling rushed, despite the attempt of the author to provide some historical and personal details. If that wasn't enough, Waller also tries to include some psychological insights, and also some medical theories as to why each woman behaved the way she did. The result is a thin narrative that doesn't really satisfy.
   
   Technically, the stories are written in a bland, matter-of-fact way that left me feeling rather bored by the stories, despite quite a bit of drama that occurs in each life. What I was hoping for was something new -- after all, how many more biographies of Elizabeth I and Queen Victoria can the market handle? And Waller has already written an outstanding book about Mary II and Anne titled Ungrateful Daughters, about James II and the Glorious Revolution of 1688.
   
   Along with the narrative, there are two inserts of colour and black and white photographs, as well as genealogical tables. The bibliography is about the best thing here, giving plenty of ideas for further research.
   
   Summing up, I would recommend this one for someone who doesn't know very much about the subject, but if you've already read biographies about these women, and are looking for something new, it's going to be a pretty dull read. Throughout the book, my attention kept wandering and I found myself bored silly. That's not a good sign, especially with history. Waller has already proved that she can do much better than this, and it's a real disappointment overall.
   
   Three stars overall. Somewhat recommended.



3. Seven personalities, not six, are on display here, the reigning queens' and Ms. Waller's.
   
   She doesn't condescend to the reader or get too lofty either; she assumes you're pretty educated, anyway, if you're reading this work, but not an expert on this subject. I loved her "voice;" it was friendly, highly personal--yet her research was impressive. I can't imagine trying to make sense of the huge amounts of often conflicting information.
   
   Like Antonia Fraser, Waller assumes the reader has a good command of foreign languages, so if, like me, you last opened a Latin book sometime in the 80's be prepared to miss a point here and there.
   
   In some places, I noticed sparks of startling misogyny. For example, Edward, son of Henry VIII was dying and his caretakers dismissed his physicians and brought in "a female quack." Well, maybe she was a quack and maybe she wasn't, but Edward was dying anyway and Ms. Waller didn't criticize the males who failed to save him. (Frankly, I wouldn't want to be treated by a medieval or Ren doctor of either sex.) In another section, she praises Elizabeth II for thinking "like a man." Hardly words I'd expect from a woman writing about comparatively powerful women!
   
   Waller succeeds in finding the personalities of all the queens, and since I never found anything interesting about either Anne or Mary II it was fascinating to feel them in particular come alive.
   
   
   All in all, I greatly enjoyed this book that gave wonderfully readable stories of the queens that were more than regents.



4. If you are not at all familiar with the six reigning Queens of England, than this is the book for you. It was informative, concise, not too biased in one direction or the other, and showed a bit of each ladies personality. It is the type of book to spark a persons interest in doing additional research on each monarch, on an individual basis.
   
   My reason for four stars, instead of five, is that I am VERY familiar with the British monarchy. This book did not disappoint, but there was little that was new and which hadn't been read in other volumes.



5. AN EXCELLENT BOOK THAT IS INFORMATIVE AND EXTREMELY INTERESTING. ALTHOUGH I AM FAMILIAR WITH EACH SOVEREIGN I LEARNED MUCH MORE THAN I EXPECTED TO. THE INSIGHT INTO THE TIMES MADE EACH SEGMENT RELEVANT. A VERY WORTHWHILE READ.

5 comments about Great Harry.

1. If you're a British history fan, you'll enjoy this book. It's a detailed biography of Henry VIII, and paints an interesting picture of life in medieval times. Henry VIII was clearly a complex, arrogant, spoiled, and, on many levels, insecure person. There is a lot of information in this book, and the author has presented it in an easy to read, entertaining style.



2. Yes, yes, yes! Terrific book. It provides the political and sociological background to Henry's reign as a whole, not limiting itself to the marriages, in vibrant, readable style.
   
   Unusually, Erickson starts in Henry's childhood, giving portraits of his parents, Henry VII and Elizabeth of York, as well as his paternal (Lancastrian) grandmother, the dynastic powerhouse that was Margaret Beaufort.
   
   Each of the 45 shortish chapters contributes to the continuum of a life, rather than just the shenanigans with the famous six spouses and various mistresses. Henry's complex psychology is judiciously handled. Plus, the knotty sixteenth-century European and Church politics are rendered crystal clear.
   
   Below I give, within the context of the six marriages, some of the less familiar material that graces this book:
   
   1) Katherine of Aragon - Henry's bright youthfulness, her difficult pregnancies, Henry's ambitions and campaigns in France, including the Battle of the Spurs, the Field of the Cloth of Gold.
   
   2) Anne Boleyn - plague in England and the imprisonment of Pope Clement VII by Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, creating difficulties in obtaining Henry's divorce.
   
   3) Jane Seymour - the Northern uprising known as the Pilgrimage of Grace. After her death, Henry's brutal executions of his Yorkist cousins the Courtenays and Poles, who had arguably superior claims to the throne.
   
   4) Anne of Cleves - Henry's search for a politically expedient marriage and his eventual alliance with Lutheran countries.
   
   5) Katherine Howard - how fever almost killed Henry's son (the eventual Edward VI) shortly before Henry discovered Katherine's adultery. Also, Henry's PR tour of the north.
   
   6) Katherine Parr - Henry's miserable old age and the attempts by courtiers to get Parr condemned for heresy.
   
   There is much more here, especially on the magnificent lifestyle, making this an entertainng, enlightening book to savour.
   
   Highest recommendation.



3. Carolly Erickson wrote this fine biography of Henry VIII (1491-1547) several years ago but it is still worth a read. You may want to learn more about Henry by reading the newer works by such renowned historians as Alison Weir and David Starkey.
   Erickson is a Ph.d who writes with the skill of a novelist.
   In this work she lets us join her at the keyhole into the gaudy,
   cruel, brutal, religiously divisive world of England in the 16th century. The medieval world of jousts was ending as the modern age was beginning. In this book we learn not only about Henry but about how people lived in the England of the Tudors.
   Henry VIII was the son of Henry VII who had ended the War of
   Roses and united England under the Tudors. Henry was a brilliant lad who wrote poetry, jousted, hunted for hours, enjoyed studying into the nights reading texts in Latin . Henry also had a fondness for the ladies!!!!!
   Henry married his first wife Katherine of Aragon (daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella) after his older brother and her husband died at the age of 15 (it was never proved if the marriage had left the pious Katherine a virgin).
   Henry went on to divorce Katherine; wed and behead the fascinating Anne Boleyn; wed Jane Seymour who gave birth to his only son Edward VI; marry and quickly divorce the German princess Anne of Cleves; marry and execute Katharine Howard and finally leave Katherine Parr a widow.
   Three of Henry's children ruled England: Edward; Mary (daughter by Katherine of Aragon); and the redoubtable Queen Elizabeth I.
   Henry was a complex man of volatile temper; fierce cruelty against religious dissenters and politcal adversaries and massive
   ego needs. Erickson is good at looking at his younger years before age, disappointment and cruelty seized his soul.
   Henry was a man of his times which were cruel, short and filled
   with religious controversy. He ruled England with an iron fist
   despite his terrible private life. He remains as one of England's most colorful, ruthless and important monarchs.
   Erickson has written three other Tudor biographies dealing with the lives of Mary, Elizabeth and the doomed Anne Boleyn.
   Dr. Erickson's books are always profitable for those of us who love to visit the Tudors and their tumultous times. Recommended.



4. Erickson is a great biographer, and her Tudor quartet are lively and throughly enjoyable. But one of her strengths--her ability to write as a novelist--makes her inevitably biased to her hero or heroine. In Great Harry, it's clear that she has no great love of the man, perhaps a grudging admiration, and certainly a good deal of pity as relates to his later years. That said, this is still an excellent bio, highly recommended to Tudor enthusiasts more interested in Henry's wives than his statesmanship--but they would be better served reading Alison Weir.



5. Carolly Erickson's Tudor and Stuart biographies are all splendid affairs. "Great Harry" attacks the personality of this man and the issues with which he graplled in a compelling and well-researched fashion without ever losing the reader's attention. Henry VIII was as big and grand as the Tudor age and this book captures both well. I also recommend Erickson's other biographies, especially "The First Elizabeth," about Henry and Anne Boylen's (she was the second wife, the first to lose her head) daughter. Truly one of the best popular historians writing about this period.

5 comments about Elizabeth I CEO: Strategic Lessons from the Leader Who Built an Empire.

1. This transaction was easy and fast. The book was in better condition than expected. Thank you!



2. While I don't believe that Elizabeth was totally the excellent strategizer, I do believe she was well advised and did her own thinking. This book goes back and imposing upon historical events the decisions made by Elizabeth-I and how it would apply in business today. There are certain parallels between a monarchy and corporation that do fit together and can be seen in examples. The major portion of the book covers the image that Elizabeth set forth by taking on being the image of the Mother Mary (Catholic church) to her subjects, thus, to make the people more accepting of the new Church of England as the religious seat of power, thus diffusing the Vatican's hold over the people. My only complaint, like others opinions, there were no mention of where things went wrong, only highlighting the good things. This is a very good book still and I recommend it along with another book called Big Chief Elizabeth (which is more of the history of the new World and Elizabeth's funding of the voyages to capture more land).



3. It was a woman who gave birth to the British Empire where the sun (son) never set on England's territory. None other than the Virgin Queen herself, who bore no heir, but lived to a very ripe old age. In her time, Elizabeth turned around her country from bankruptcy and discord. The book takes snippets from her life and there are some gems of wisdom from Elizabeth's reign. Like her father, Henry VIII, Queen Elizabeth the First lived large and had the courage to be powerful, was an orphaned Princess who ascended to the throne and a nation in tatters ... and whose life was a testament that resulted in Rule Britannia until the last colony, Hong Kong, was relinquished in 1997.
   
   But if you really need lessons from a Monarch: read Margaret Thatcher's own words on her ascent. First hand knowledge is the most useful.



4. Elizabeth I CEO was a wonderful reading that inspired me a lot. It is one of those books that you hate to leave unfinished. The lessons of Elizabeths leadership are compelling and quite inspiring.
   
   I never thought that I would need a book on inspiration in my life, but this book indeed changed this view as well.
   
   Excellent work.



5. I do have a comment on history content, in response to one of other reviews I read -let's keep in mind that, if it wasn't for Elizabeth I there would be no empire to pass along to James I-England would be swallowed up by either France or Spain. Surely, Elizabeth I made a few mistakes like every other monarch, but they fade out in comparison to her achievements. She truly did build an empire, and serves as a great example of a true leader.
   Tudor scholar

5 comments about William Wallace: Brave Heart.

1. THE GOOD: The book is interesting but largely because of the target and not so much due to the execution of relaying the story about said target. This was my first step into the life of William Wallace and will admit that I enjoyed it, somewhat.
   
   THE BAD: I felt like the book could have been laid out a little better. Through much of first part, it seemed like there was a lot of back filling about things other than Wallace. I understand the author needs to create the world in which Wallace was born, but to do so at the expense of leaving the subject of your book out I think is a mistake. I wanted more Wallace in these early chapters and while he wasn't totally absent, I think he could have been more present.
   
   THE UGLY: Not being an expert on WW, I wonder at the inaccuracies within this book regarding his life. I know the main source comes from Harry's story but there are parts in the book where the author even casts doubts on the validity of Harry's writing. There were also parts where it was explained, with surprising detail, how WW had combatted numerous English foes by himself in an almost superhuman like way. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not...I don't know. But I did find myself wondering what was accurate adn what was not.
   
   Ubermonkey says that there are probably better books one can buy regarding the outstanding life of William Wallace.



2. I have read many reviews, and as a medieval history student people need to realize when writing about the middle ages many sources are not original. This is a great book, that argues from many points of where Wallace may have lived. They are guesses, but based on the best availiable sources. Also writersd need to take into consideration where the accounts came from, and how they were altered in such a way. Of course accounts from an english lord wont be in favor of wallace. What i did liek about the book, is how it is left out about the battle at york, which in the movie got peope excited. #1 sieges almost never worked for opposing armies, also if an opposing army did break through walls were lines with archers and it was rare that anyone would take the castle. #2 It was a small rebel army, nit a trained military, and at this point the whole english army would have been sent north for protection, so i highly doubt wallace would have sacked york, the movie is incorrect as usual. As for the book, the author does the best he can with what is given to him.



3. As a Wallace aficionado, i looked forward to reading this, but to say i was disappointed was an understatement.
   This badly researched book was full of inaccuracies.
   The author puts forward an alternative Wallace birthplace, putting forward detail that the unsuspecting reader would probably take on board. For instance, he says "Corsbie is of course, now known as Crosshouse", whereas these two places are seperate entities.
   He places one monument, that of Leglen Wood, 20 miles away from its correct location, and claims Wallace was born in Ayrshire, whereas the Wallace family were vassals of the Stewart family, who never owned land in this area, and so Wallace could not have been born there.
   Dates are wrong, one monument he claims was built in 1970, was actually built in 1910.
   I feel the author, no stranger to controversy, has jumped on the Wallace bandwagon, and has rushed this work out to take advantage of the boom caused by Braveheart. Many people see details in print, and assume they are true. This book has so many inaccuracies that it will actually lead its readers astray.



4. I'm a big fan of the movie Braveheart, and of history, but I could never get into this book. It's written somewhere in between a novel and a work of history. Because it strattles this line it brings out the best of neither world.

   The author clearly attempted to write a biography on Wallace based on Blind Harry's poems, but he filled in many details to poems that are probably embellished history. I just found the book rather dull.




5. As a child of 9 I picked out the decor for my new room - Wallace Plaid - which dumbfounded my family since our Clans were MacGillivray, Ogilvie, Grant, Fraser and Montgomerie! But I thought Wallace such a great, sweeping figure. This was decades before Randall Wallace accidentally discovered William Wallace on a vacation in Scotland and read Anne Porter's Highland Chiefs. Wallace, to me, was such a true Patriot - not a Saint, but a man willing to go to the wall, to die for what he believed. Not many of us would walk in his shoes, so I have to admire his willingness to die for an idea.
   James MacKay gives a richly details account of the Scottish clime of politics that formed and fermented Wallace. It might be a little bit more than the average reader would be interested in (I would suggest Grey's book on Wallace in that case), but for those wishing to know more without wading through Blind Harry, this is a wonderful work.

   A perfect gift to that friend that watched Braveheart more than once!!

1 comments about David Roberts: Travels in Egypt & the Holy Land.

1. This is not nearly as nice as another David Robert's book, Egypt: Yesterday and Today, but the images are just as beautiful, even in their reduced size. His work is truly amazing and after traveling in Egypt you really appreciate his vision of the past.

1 comments about Anne Neville: Queen to Richard III (England's Forgotten Queens series).

1. Anne Neville is one of the most poorly documented queens of England; Hicks originally doubted that he could find enough material. I applaud his effort, but 4 stars is somewhat generous: I award it for the uniqueness of the work and the lovely cover. This book should be of interest to the people interested in the Richard III controversies. The history and politics that determined the course of Anne's life are not well explained; anyone unfamiliar with the Wars of the Roses may want to read up on them first. Since the people mentioned here were the main actors, a few encyclopedia articles would probably be enough for a start.
   
   The book begins slowly with a chapter on Anne and Richard as fictionalized by the unavoidable William Shakespeare. Is there a law in the UK that the Wars of the Roses can't be discussed without extensive reference to the Bard? Hicks next tells us about Anne's noble ancestry; the reader should consult the genealogy at the end of the text to keep all the Richards, Annes, Isabels and Cecilys straight. Hicks might at least have included the stories about her semi-mythic ancestors: Guy of Warwick and The Swan Knight since he mentions the names. After this, Hicks launches into Anne's life history and the book is fairly good until after Anne is widowed.
   
   The rest of the book is chiefly concerned with the (dubious) dealings of her second husband, Richard, Duke of Gloucester; Anne is scanted. One would think that the death of her sister Isabel would be an event in Anne's life, let alone the attendant drama of illegal executions leading to a confrontation with Edward IV and Clarence's death, but it is mentioned almost parenthetically in a discussion of inheritance. Certainly there is room for more information: the book is only 215 pages, much of it is redundant: on p.71 Hicks tells about the consanguity between Clarence and Isabel. On pp.132-133, he gives us similar information about Richard and Anne, much of it the same. Since Clarence and Richard were brothers and Anne and Isabel were sisters, the reader probably knows a lot of this from p.71; the problem with their being cousins is obviously the same, only the issue of now being additionally related by marriage is added. Then on pp.143-144 he recounts it all again and recaps it on p.205.
   
   I belong to the Richard III Society; that does not require me to think of him as a saint (I checked before I joined), but a lot of this is silly. Hicks seems torn between trying to be fair and trying to find almost any excuse to scald Richard. This accounts for a certain amount of the redundancy: issues may be visited twice, once with a neutral interpretation, than again with an anti-Richard interpretation. At least he does include the neutral interpretations.
   
   He claims that their marriage was scandalous to their contemporaries, without quoting any who were scandalized. Related multiple times, Anne and Richard required dispensations to marry. Hicks argues that this may have been impossible, then mentions cases where such permission was granted. Proper documentation has not been found, but the marriage was accepted by their contemporaries. Hicks cites the property settlement as proof of a lack of proper dispensation, since it provides for the event of the marriage being annulled. As I recall, so did the marriage agreement for Richard's nephew, the Duke of York - this was outrageously unfair to the bride, but was this a standard provision for princes? There is also what I call the Obvious Problem: if the settlement makes it obvious that there was no dispensation, why didn't their contemporaries realize this? It was an Act of Parliament: how secret can it have been? I am much more cynical about dispensations: I think they involved more money & politics and less theology than Hicks seems to.
   
   There is no evidence that Richard and Anne married chiefly for love, but as Hicks mentions, that was typical for their time and it made sense for them to join forces. Anne had a vast inheritance which she couldn't access, Richard was possibly the only man with the influence to get it. I do not see why Richard shouldn't have fought for Anne's share, nor do I see how this necessarily "exploited" her; Hicks finds it unseemly. Anne probably wanted her share for herself (to the extent that married women had any control), and her heirs as much as Richard did.
   
   He makes provocative statements such as: "One must moreover deplore the immorality of the match. A custodial sentence and registration would result today for any man like Duke Richard [then 19] guilty of having sexual intercourse with a fifteen-year-old girl, but fifteenth century standards permitted such relations and indeed regarded them as normal and legitimate." [p.130] That's certainly having it both ways! Hicks has already told us, without any evidence of disapproval, that Margaret Beaufort was married at 12 [her husband was about 25] and a mother at 14. Anne was a already a widow before she married Richard: at 14 she had a consummated marriage with 17-year-old Edward of Lancaster. It certainly wasn't necessary to tell us again that early marriage was common; Hicks apparently just wanted to associate Richard, and only Richard, with sex offenses.
   
   On the other hand, while discussing the possibility that Richard poisoned Anne, which Hicks certainly should, he surprised me by concluding that she probably wasn't.
   
   Given the lack of personal detail for Anne's life, I think that it would have been better if Hicks had spent more time describing the usual life of a woman of her status, details of pageants that she may have attended, etc. One of the pleasures of reading biographies of ill-documented people is that the authors, not having to cram in a large amount of material, often create a better picture of the age than they do with major figures.

No comments about The Man Who Made Lists: Love, Death, Madness, and the Creation of Roget's Thesaurus.

5 comments about Ungrateful Daughters: The Stuart Princesses Who Stole Their Father's Crown.

1. Ungrateful Daughters is a beautifully written book that I highly recommend to any English history nut. I not only felt as if I knew each person intimately, but the sequence in which the author writes keeps it fast-paced and interesting. It is the first book I've read about the latter Stuarts (and I've read many) that kept me involved from start to finish. It is a skillful study of personalities, motives and all the human strengths and weaknesses everyone of us possess. Ms. Waller presents the political influences on the women in question in an engaging manner - a great accomplishment since politics during the Stuart reign are so complex one can easily be overwhelmed by them. Ungrateful Daughters is one of the best historical biographies I have ever read!



2. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 was a compelling human drama as well as a major political event. At the center of the political events were Mary II and Anne, daughters of James II, real human beings who faced difficult decisions as to where their duty lay. Unfortunately, Ungrateful Daughters does a very poor job of telling this story. Instead of a story of real people dealing with an actual dilemma, Waller's book tells the tale as a shallow soap opera with the principals divided into neat categories of victims (James II and Mary Beatrice) and villains (William, Mary, and Anne).
   
   The theme of James II as victim has come into vogue in recent years, as the result of a revisionist historical interpretation which casts him as a proto-modern champion of religious toleration. Regardless of the sincerity of James's professions about liberty of conscience, they were the result of the fact that members of his own Roman Catholic faith were a minority in Britain and would thus be the beneficiaries of any alteration in religious policy. James certainly never exhibited any inclination toward tolerance that would not end up benefiting members of his own Church. There is no record that his enthusiasm for toleration ever led him to press for better treatment of Protestants in countries with a Catholic majority. At exactly the same time that James was advocating tolerance of Catholics in Britain, the Protestants in Louis XIV's France were being forced to either convert to Catholicism or emigrate, and there is no record that James II ever protested to Louis about their treatment.
   
   However, the deeper issue between James II and Parliament was not religious but political. James professed that he, as king, had the power to suspend and dispense with laws enacted by Parliament. Parliament, understandably, strongly disagreed with this claim, and there was bound to be a clash at some point. Religious policy just happened to be the issue upon which the disagreement came to a head. Waller is not as sympathetic to James as the most extreme revisionists (which incurred the ire of at least one reviewer on this site), but the theme of James as victim is a major one, as evinced by the title of the book itself.
   
   Waller spends a great deal of time discussing a pivotal event leading up to the revolution - the birth of Prince James Francis Edward (later known as the Old Pretender) to King James and Queen Mary Beatrice in the summer of 1688. It was the prospect of a Catholic heir to the throne that pushed many who were undecided into supporting the intervention of William. Even before the birth there were many rumors circulating that the Queen's pregnancy was a conspiracy on the part of the Catholics to ensure the birth of a Catholic heir to the throne, and the rumors became certainties for many people after a boy was born, just as many Catholics had predicted. The fact that both Mary and Anne gave credence to these rumors is the crux of Waller's portrait of them as "ungrateful daughters." Historians have long accepted that there was no truth to the rumors insinuating that the new prince was not the son of the king and queen, and Waller excoriates both Mary and Anne for doubting it and doing nothing to stop the rumors. Anne in particular is held up as the villain of the piece, and, reading Waller's account, one gets the impression that she single-handedly fomented the rumors surrounding the birth of her half brother and could have stopped the revolution in its tracks had she acted differently.
   
   However, Waller utterly fails to take into account that the circumstances of the prince's birth were not nearly as clear in 1688 as they are with the benefit of hindsight. At the time there were plenty of suspicious circumstances for those who wanted to doubt. The very fact of the birth of a healthy son to a woman whose eight previous pregnancies either ended in miscarriage or produced sickly babies who died soon after birth was in itself suspicious. Also, the birth took place a full month earlier than was expected. Waller argues that the discrepancy was due to a mistake on the part of the royal physicians as to the date of conception, which was probably the case, although she does not explain why this should have been clear to everyone in 1688. Additionally, although the birth was witnessed by numerous people, they were all either Catholics or political allies of James, whose testimony was regarded as suspect. Notably absent, besides Anne herself, were the Dutch ambassador and Edward and Lawrence Hyde (brothers of James's first wife and thus uncles of Mary and Anne), whose testimony would have been accepted as conclusive. From the perspective of three hundred years in the future, all these things may appear insignificant next to the fact that a baby boy was born in full view of numerous witnesses. However, in the atmosphere of 1688, with the prospect of a Catholic heir who might someday decide that a re-conversion of Britain to Catholicism was preferable to toleration (just as Louis XIV had reversed his grandfather's edict giving toleration to French Protestants), the questionable aspects surrounding the birth gave plenty of material to justify doubts on the part of those who were disposed to be suspicious.
   
   The doubts about the new prince's legitimacy did not rest upon the testimony of either Anne or her sister. Neither Anne nor Mary started the rumors, although Anne repeated them and Mary in Holland believed them. The stories were spread throughout the country by such popular press as existed at the time and many prominent political figures lent credence to them and spread them. Anne's conduct in this affair leaves a nasty taste in the mouth, but it is far from clear that she could have done anything effective to quash the rumors, even if she had wanted to. Even if she had publicly denied the rumors, there was nothing to prevent people from dismissing this as done at the behest of James. Nuance, however, has no place in this book. By portraying Anne as holding the balance of affairs in her hand and failing to accurately consider events in the context of their time, Waller gives an incomplete and distorted picture of events.
   
   There are numerous instances throughout the book of sloppy research and assumptions presented as fact. For example, Waller claims at one point that certain letters (not written by Anne) "imply" that Anne promised her father that she would restore the throne to her brother. There is no solid evidence that Anne actually made such a promise, and Waller does not present any. However, this supposed promise becomes a major theme in the book, and Waller refers to it again and again as fact, describing certain actions of Queen Anne during her reign as violations of the promise that she made to her father - a promise that there is no proof Anne ever made. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated example, but rather typical of Waller's method. Assertions are made on flimsy evidence, or no evidence at all, and thereafter referenced as fact.
   
   The story of the Revolution of 1688 has the potential to be a compelling tale of real people living through momentous events. The two princesses who are the chief subjects of this book could be portrayed as real women who had to make difficult choices when their duty to their father came into conflict with what they saw as their duty to their faith and their country. Instead, what this book gives is a two-dimensional caricature of two women who "stole their father's crown" for no better reason than petty vindictiveness.



3. The Stuarts were more than a series of Scots-English monarchs, they were a contentious family filled with ambitious, egotistical, often ignoble figures who were not above slipping the knife in to advance their own careers. The generational and religious tension chronicled in this well-written true-to-life soap opera began with James II's move toward the Catholic Church, which alienated both his people and his two staunchly Protestant daughters, Mary and Anne, each of whom reigned after him. Whether Mary's husband, William of Orange, usurped the crown in the Glorious Revolution depends on your point of view, but Anne (who wasn't speaking to her older sister at the time of her early death) declared her half-brother, James ("The Old Pretender"), an outlaw -- having previously claimed, in letters to Mary, that their hated stepmother's pregnancy was a Catholic hoax and plot. Waller's narrative is compelling and enjoyable as well as informative. You can almost see a screenplay waiting to be written.



4. Better books on the time period can be found. The writer distorts historical fact to fit her own agenda.



5. I loved this book. It is well written and contains such detail that the characters truly come to life. I have many books on the Restoration and none of them describes James, Duke of York and his second wife Maria Beatrice and the "ungrateful daughters" better. Many jucy details. What they wore, how they looked, their quirks and peculiarities give a much fuller picture of the court and courtiers. This book is an easy read and would engage a reader who does not like usual history books. This does not mean it is light. It's the writing of an author who is a keen observer of the subjects.

5 comments about Nankering With the Rolling Stones.

1. This book is precious and priceless!

   Older Stones fans (like me), especially those familiar with Sixties London and the districts where The Stones lived in 1963, will delight in the easily readable and so evidently true stories of The Stones' very early days when Mick, Keith and Brian were more than teenagers but not quite mature adults. Phelge has covered many of the bases and truly gives you a taste of the environment that nurtured The Stones. You arre literally in the room with them, watching The Stones struggle hard, indeed, almost desperately for a commercial break, and against incredible odds in a still conservative post-war England. The book is chock-full of marvellous observations, wonderful insights, hilariously humorous incidents, and pathos. It clearly reflects Phelge's superb capabilities as a raconteur (and one not given to exaggeration) who tracked the evolution of The Stones even as he lived with Mick, Keith and Brian 40 years ago in their squalid, disorganized flat where cleaning up for the lads simply meant throwing crockery, cutlery and utensils out of the kitchen window into the communal garden below.

   The book is filled with gems: Mick's yearning and wistfulness for a load of money as he lolls aimlessly in a freezing cold, food-free flat with his fellow Stones; chucking Ian Stewart out of the band because he did not look "with-it" enough for Andrew Loog Oldham, the first manager of The Stones along with Eric Easton; the unbelievably funny and ridiculous "Toilet Door Fiasco" with Keith and Phelge who drove their neighbors mad every day for months on end with their antics and purloining; the "Immaculate Dollies" with their [nice figures]; the "nankering" (face-making and squawking) and pranks that went with their looning around generally; the list is endless.

   In addition, Phelge paints excellent portraits of The Stones' character and temperament. One sees the competitiveness and tension between Brian on the one hand, and Mick-and-Keith on the other hand, all starting very early on in their association. (They would carry this around with them for years until they ditched Brian with the worst of feelings in 1969.)

   Younger Stones fans need to read this book in order to understand who The Stones were and where they came from, and how they started up the ladder that took them to stardom at the very top of the world where they have stayed since 1965. My younger office colleagues who like The Stones have absolutely no idea about any of this history and it is a shocking gap in their knowledge.

   Overall, an amazing, informative, excellent book. At least 5 stars!

   JS




2. If you're looking for saucy gossip about groupies and drugs, this is not the book for you. If you want to learn about five teenagers from London who had a dream, buy this book. James Phelge, forever known as "Roommate of the Stones," offers priceless insights and hilarious shenanigans of a struggling, unknown band named after a Muddy Waters blues song. After the Stones start touring America, the story seems to drag a bit by focusing on some of the "Swinging London" scene, but it is merely a set-up for the shocking ending -- Phelge walks away from it all and chooses to live a normal life! The crazy man of Edith Grove turns out to be the sanest of them all. A must read for EVERY Stones fan.



3. This is certainly the best "story of the Stones" book. Phelge manages to present the story straight out, with an excellent memory for detail. When he drops names (and there are lots) you really don't get the feeling he's dropping names, it just somebody else who was around at the time.

   Although many of the stories have been told by Phelge to other writers before and have sort of become part of the Stones legend, it's great to hear the whole thing from beginning to end from the man himself.

   If you only buy one Stones book, this is a great choice.

   If you want one book that provides a window on the early 60s London music scene, this is it.

   If you want a book that tells a great story about a group of naive guys trying to be a band, this is it. There are not ridiculous stories about parties, but when they screw around, you get the feeling you were there yourself.....a very nice writing job and well worth the trouble to find and read.




4. My husband is a true Stones fan. He loved this book. It gives many insights to how they began and grew to what they are now. He has thanked me over and over again for buying him this book to add to his collection. He knows alot about the Stones and this book was not a repeat of things he already knew. If you like the Stones, you should grab this book!



5. I've read many a book about the Rolling Stones. This one is by far the funniest, most grotesque, enjoyable read about the Stones ever written. Suprisingly Phelge has a natural talent for writing, and it shows in this delightful read. I reccomend this book for any Stones fan. Trust me. My wife even liked this book!I guarantee you won't put it down until it's done. Thanks Mr. Jimmy

5 comments about The Queen's Conjurer: The Science and Magic of Dr. John Dee, Adviser to Queen Elizabeth I.

1. For 25 years I have read & collected everything on John Dee I could find, even to the point of ordering the Sloan MSS fron the British museum. My only complaint about this effort is that it wasn't longer. It reads like a novel. This is the daily life of one of the most fascinating people in British history. Occultists will get clarity on the nature of the Angelic workings, Alchemists get a glimpse of the nature of the craft, students of history are drawn into the gritty reality of fifteenth century Europe. This book carried me through from beginning to end in only two sittings. I couldn't put it down. Well done Woolley!



2. I have always found Dr. John Dee to be one of the most intriguing characters of Elizabethan times. Yet, there seemed to be so little information available about him, only bits and pieces and rumors- often spread by his enemies. Here is a most satisfying biography that not only gives you a complete look at the Doctor's life, but is also supplemented with a wealth of associated detail and historical background. This book turns Dee from a shadowy character to a real man, a great man.

   What comes across is the amazing breadth and depth of Dee's interests and scholarship. He was already famed for his remarkable intellect and ability as a student at Cambridge. At a time when most scholars barely processed a reading knowledge of bad Latin, he mastered classical Greek to be able to read the forgotten works of Plato and Pythagoras. He was a personal friend and correspondent to the great men of the age such as Tycho Brahe and Mercator. Dee himself was famed as a great mathematician in Europe (at a time when simple trigonometry was almost unknown in England.) He was offered high positions at the great courts of Europe, but turned these offers down out of a deep seated desire to raise up his country of birth to be their eventual global equal (at this time England was a poor, backward, weak backwater.) Indeed, the first conception of a British Empire, founded upon a strong Royal Navy, was first expounded by Dee.

   John Dee was as close to modern scientist as existed in the 16th century. He independently came to the conclusion that bodies of unequal weight fall at the same rate- before Galileo. He was recognized as England's top expert on optics and lenses. He was recognized as one of the top experts on navigation and chart making of his day. He kept detailed astronomical observations that even Tycho Brahe admired. He based his astrological work upon the heliocentric "heresy" of Copernicus. He was an expert in geology and ores and leased his own tin mine. He also collected the biggest research library of the age in Mortlake, which was a gathering place of the greatest minds of England and the continent. In short- Dee was a competent expert in several areas of natural philosophy and applied technology. He believed in detailed observation and record keeping- in both natural, and supernatural, phenomena.

   The thing is, Dee believed his accomplishments in the more material and practical sciences to be among his lesser accomplishments. Like Newton after him, his real passion was with the deepest cosmic and spiritual secrets. This led to his fame as an astrologer, and an alchemist, and a cabalist. Dee's passion was to discover the ancient, true, original religion of mankind, the "prisci theology." That is why he could walk easily among both Protestants and Catholics- he ultimately considered both of their dogma's to be equally absurd. Dee had a much more open mind that the "scientists" of later centuries- he studied all unknown forces, natural or supernatural. This was why be studied and practiced natural magic (Agrippa's three books were always open upon his desk for quick reference.) He knew that hidden currents influenced the day-to-day world, and he documented his observations even if he couldn't explain them in terms of material cause and effect. This also led to his interest is scrying and the use of natural sensitives to communicate with spirits. It should be noted, that no one at this time doubted the existence of such spirits- it was as self evident as the existence of God. In fact, many powerful lords of the day employed seers and scryers, including the earls of Leicester, Pembroke, and Northumberland.

   All in all, you come away with a renewed respect for Dee. You realize that his only fault was to be born in a society of petty, ignorant, lesser men. It was they that libeled and slandered his image and painted him as a superstitious conjuror. Indeed, the only real mistake that the good Doctor made was to outlive his beloved queen and protector.




3. Dr. John Dee is now considered to be the English Renaissance man. This was not always the case, however, because his first biographers, as the author of this fine biography points out, were either `hard-headed rationalist or muddle-headed mystics.' In present time, researchers and historians agree that Dee was a true Renaissance man because he sought to connect or reconcile rationalism with magic, science and the supernatural. This was not unusual for the time. Copernicus cited the mystic Hermes Trismegistus in his Magnum Opus, proposing the heliocentric universe. Isaac Newton began his career as an alchemist, before moving on to modern methods of pure science. John Dee was the most important scientists of the Elizabethan age. But this is only a somewhat recent recognition because throughout the ages he was considered a charlatan, crook, blockhead and "companion of hellhounds". Benjamin Woolley's fine biography combines history, science, espionage and common sense and attempts to answer how a man of genius that had such a major influence in mathematics, astronomy, cartography, navigation and science in general, could die a pauper and in obscurity.

   In 1659, a scholar by the name of Meric Casaubon copied and published a collection of Dee's documents, which contained the recordings of spiritual conversations with angels and archangels, and other dialogues, which could be interpreted dubious at best. After the publication Dee's reputation as a credible philosopher went steadily down hill and has taken centuries to recover. Woolley has done some fine research, using Dee's actual diaries, and has painstakingly pieced together his life and career.

   The Elizabethan age was a turning point in Western history. The Reformation was essentially a battle for power and knowledge and a bloody war in the name of religion. But it also set the stage for the Enlightenment, and Dr. John Dee was a precursor to the Age of Reason. He was a man of `science', collecting and studying every ancient text he could get his hands on, (his library is the stuff of legend) but rational knowledge, he truly believed, would only take him so far - he desired heavenly knowledge and wisdom. And it is possible that his spiritual researches into the divine nature could have been the cause of his downfall. Dee did not seek worldly gain, riches and material pleasure; his only desire was to attain the secrets of the Holy. Did he pay the ultimate price for this activity?

   ~The Queen's Conjurer~ is not a dense historical text, but an informative and enlightening piece of research. It casts some light on an intriguing figure, removing him from modern occult history and in to the mainstream.




4. Benjamin Woolley's 'The Queen's Conjurer' is the most recent attempt to present the life of the English Enigma, Dr. John Dee. Dee is an interesting character and one that has sadly been much maligned over the centuries. Since his death in 1608, he has largely been dismissed at best as an sorcerer and black magicican and, at worst, as a credulous old fool dabbling in astrology and necromancy. Today, despite his prominent historical role in Elizabethan politics and his great contibutions to many fields, he is hardly remembered at all. This book tries to alleviate that problem.

   Wolley's work is well-researched and attempts to shed light on Dee's life and his many accomplishments as not only an occultist, but also as an astronomer, mathematician, explorer, and spy. Dee was a product of the Renaissance and devoured knowledge and information. He was an avid bibliophile, a voracious author of various works on astronomy, astrology, mathematics, occult philosophy, and was well-respected by many prominent people at the court of Queen Elizabeth. The Queen herself counted herself one of Dee's benefactors and visited him numerous times at his home at Mortlake, taking a genuine interest in his many magical and mathematical works. Today he is largely remembered for his works concerning "Enochian" or Angel Magic, due to the fact that these are the bulk of his writings that have survived the flames of history. Most of the second half of this book is concerned with Dee's European adventures with the mysterious scryer Edward Kelly, who is largely regarded by history as a charlatan and a rake. Kelly is a shadowy and intriguing figure and we get some insight into his character and motivations but he is never truly revealed to us, perhaps he never will be. In the end, Dee finds that despite a lifetime of great works and accomplishments, he is viewed with mistrust and suspicion by the general public and has lost favor with the new court of King James I. He dies a tired and broken man, and history would continue to tarnish his great name until well into the 20th century.

   The Queen's Conjurer is a very readable account of a great and fascinating man.




5. Woolley's book is good-hearted, an attempt to help modern readers see John Dee not at the fringes but at the heart of much that was going on Elizabethan England.

   But the book's execution leaves *much* to be desired. As other Amazon.com reviews have noted, the thread of the story gets lost along the way (especially amidst some of the sordid details concerning Dee's relationship with Edward Kelly). There are a number of interesting facts and anecdotes, but they never quite come together as a coherent whole. And Woolley displays such an appalling ignorance of Catholicism when he attempts to describe the religious background of the period (and in some instances, ignorance of Christianity in general) that I tend to wonder whether he's gotten his facts about Dee's life wrong too.

   While I'll give the book 3 stars for good intentions, in general, you're better off finding a copy of Peter French's _John Dee: The World of an Elizabethan Magus_.